Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gorsuch is the most radical SCJ in America's history.... (Original Post) pbmus Jun 2018 OP
If only he could be removed once it is proven Trump is installed by Russia for Russia. pandr32 Jun 2018 #1
He can be removed ProudLib72 Jun 2018 #8
Like those confirmation hearings? bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #9
I said it was "possible", not "likely" ProudLib72 Jun 2018 #11
Russian agents strike right at the core of illegitimacy bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #13
I fully agree, and I'm pissed as hell about it ProudLib72 Jun 2018 #14
That is too bad pandr32 Jun 2018 #16
Elections have consequences... beachbum bob Jun 2018 #2
Except it was a corrupt illegitimate election (it was a farce). triron Jun 2018 #4
You seem to have forgotten that President Obama nominated a replacement malaise Jun 2018 #5
Thank you Susan Sarandon, Cornel West, Jill Stein, NINA TURNER and oasis Jun 2018 #35
His mother was the most radical nut job to be a cabinet secretary grantcart Jun 2018 #3
Who was his mother and who nominated her? hedda_foil Jun 2018 #6
Reagan dhol82 Jun 2018 #12
Anne Gorsuch, Reagan's EPA Head as deiberate wrecking ball; she was the paradign stuffmatters Jun 2018 #19
Not surprised. dhol82 Jun 2018 #20
Thanks. hedda_foil Jun 2018 #26
Why are the replies in this thread orangecrush Jun 2018 #7
Mine is ok dhol82 Jun 2018 #10
Back to normal orangecrush Jun 2018 #29
Whenever there is a problem the answer is to turn it off, wait a minute and turn it on again. dhol82 Jun 2018 #30
TRUTH orangecrush Jun 2018 #31
Maybe if a certain group would have fought harder Raysawesome34 Jun 2018 #15
Yep. It's all the Democrats fault GulfCoast66 Jun 2018 #18
Yes! Raysawesome34 Jun 2018 #25
Alright Mr. Or Ms. blame the Democrats, GulfCoast66 Jun 2018 #33
Says the member from 5/26/18. sinkingfeeling Jun 2018 #22
That's the best you got? Raysawesome34 Jun 2018 #24
Obama and minority Senate Democrats were powerless to force action on Garland. tritsofme Jun 2018 #32
When people are too lazy to vote things like Gorsuch happen Snake Plissken Jun 2018 #17
Do not blame me. dhol82 Jun 2018 #21
I'm not blaming you, or anyone else who voted, but it's really disheartening to know that Snake Plissken Jun 2018 #23
I got the feeling that many who voted just wanted to do a fuck you to Hillary. dhol82 Jun 2018 #27
No surprise here. In high school he was a member of the Fascists Forever club. Why didn't we c-rational Jun 2018 #28
Read the article and you'll see how extreme this is jmowreader Jun 2018 #34

pandr32

(11,594 posts)
1. If only he could be removed once it is proven Trump is installed by Russia for Russia.
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 05:27 PM
Jun 2018

I'm quite sure there will be little doubt once Mueller finishes his work.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
8. He can be removed
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:02 PM
Jun 2018

But not because the Rump installed him. He must be impeached for offenses he has committed.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
11. I said it was "possible", not "likely"
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:10 PM
Jun 2018

And it would need to be for something he did on his own, not because he was installed by Russian agents.

In saying that, I do believe there need to be some rule changes, starting with how hearings cannot be delayed for a year.

bucolic_frolic

(43,202 posts)
13. Russian agents strike right at the core of illegitimacy
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:13 PM
Jun 2018

To say we cannot find a way to undo the unjust is to give up. If the truth is ever laid bare for all to see, possibilities could improve. Theft is theft. Theft is a violation of property rights, in this case voting rights. Someday we will have this discussion as a nation.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
14. I fully agree, and I'm pissed as hell about it
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:16 PM
Jun 2018

But at the moment, we are bound by the laws that are in place. If we had a 2/3 majority in Congress, then we could do something more.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
2. Elections have consequences...
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 05:35 PM
Jun 2018

We have many to thank, starting with those not supporting/voting because the "lesser of 2 evils"

malaise

(269,072 posts)
5. You seem to have forgotten that President Obama nominated a replacement
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 06:24 PM
Jun 2018

for Scalia - do you remember what the turtle and other ReTHUGs did?

oasis

(49,393 posts)
35. Thank you Susan Sarandon, Cornel West, Jill Stein, NINA TURNER and
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 11:31 PM
Jun 2018

a host of other haughty "know it alls".

hedda_foil

(16,375 posts)
6. Who was his mother and who nominated her?
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 06:44 PM
Jun 2018

If it's been covered here before, I apologize for not seeing it.

stuffmatters

(2,574 posts)
19. Anne Gorsuch, Reagan's EPA Head as deiberate wrecking ball; she was the paradign
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:44 PM
Jun 2018

And Trump has followed the tradition with an almost entirely Mission Hostile/Unqualified Cabinet....DeVos, Carson, Pruitt, Zinke, Ross etc
Gorsuch is Trump's SCOTUS wrecking ball.

Neil has been brainwashed in same Birch/Kochism since birth. Plus he apparently has her same arrogant, condescending personality: Reportedly most of the other SCOTUS justices find Neil Gorsuch 's opinions pedantic and his presence obnoxious.

orangecrush

(19,581 posts)
7. Why are the replies in this thread
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 06:56 PM
Jun 2018

appearing in teeny tiny print?

(not the header, but the text.)

Doesn't seem to be happening on other threads.

Perhaps just on my device?

dhol82

(9,353 posts)
30. Whenever there is a problem the answer is to turn it off, wait a minute and turn it on again.
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 10:22 PM
Jun 2018

Solves virtually any problem.

 

Raysawesome34

(19 posts)
15. Maybe if a certain group would have fought harder
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:25 PM
Jun 2018

To get thier guy confirmed we wouldn't be in this situation.
Our side laid down on the job when those asshole Republicans wouldn't even give Obama's pick a meeting.
There's enough blame to go around on this one.
Sorry. Not sorry.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
18. Yep. It's all the Democrats fault
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:40 PM
Jun 2018

They had absolutely no power, but I guess they were supposed to do what?! Throw a bigger temper tantrum?

 

Raysawesome34

(19 posts)
25. Yes!
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 08:09 PM
Jun 2018

The hugest fucking temper tantrum evah!
It's the SC for fucks sake!
Do you expect the notorious RBG to live to 150?!
Love her to pieces but that ain't happening.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
33. Alright Mr. Or Ms. blame the Democrats,
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 11:05 PM
Jun 2018

What could we have done to prevent it from happening?

You seem to have an answer that our most experienced leaders lacked.

Please enlighten us on what could have been done to prevent the Atrocity from happening?

 

Raysawesome34

(19 posts)
24. That's the best you got?
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 08:07 PM
Jun 2018

The fact that I just found this place?
I stated an opinion that maybe we need to toughen up as a party.
So you disagree? Why?
SC appointments are pretty fucking important.
I would like to think we would treat them as such.

tritsofme

(17,380 posts)
32. Obama and minority Senate Democrats were powerless to force action on Garland.
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 10:45 PM
Jun 2018

The blame is wholly owned by McConnell and the GOP majority.

Snake Plissken

(4,103 posts)
17. When people are too lazy to vote things like Gorsuch happen
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:37 PM
Jun 2018

And this can keep happening as long as people can't be bothered to vote, all it takes is one election for a generation's worth of damage.

Voter turnout at 20-year low in 2016

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html

As a nation we take our democracy for granted and got exactly what we deserve.

dhol82

(9,353 posts)
21. Do not blame me.
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:58 PM
Jun 2018

I kept screaming to anyone who would listen that the Supreme Court was at risk.
And see what happened?

Snake Plissken

(4,103 posts)
23. I'm not blaming you, or anyone else who voted, but it's really disheartening to know that
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 08:06 PM
Jun 2018

our destiny is in the hands of people who are too lazy to vote.

Which is pretty much the case, it's the only reason Republicans have control right now.

dhol82

(9,353 posts)
27. I got the feeling that many who voted just wanted to do a fuck you to Hillary.
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 08:58 PM
Jun 2018

They had no thoughts about anything else.
Supreme Court, any future control of Congress - no problem.
We won’t have Hillary to hate.
Pathetic. All of it.

c-rational

(2,594 posts)
28. No surprise here. In high school he was a member of the Fascists Forever club. Why didn't we
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 09:18 PM
Jun 2018

hear that from any credible news source.

jmowreader

(50,560 posts)
34. Read the article and you'll see how extreme this is
Mon Jun 11, 2018, 11:23 PM
Jun 2018

First, here's the decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1432_7j8b.pdf

Minnesota statute 524.2-804 says: if you designated your spouse as the beneficiary of your life insurance policy and the two of you get divorced, that designation is nullified. (It also says you can voluntarily designate your ex as your beneficiary, and the procedure is not difficult.)

Mark Sveen married Kaye Melin in 1997. In 1998, Mr. Sveen bought a life insurance policy. The now-Mrs. Sveen was named as primary beneficiary and his two kids from a previous marriage were contingent beneficiaries. In 2007, the Sveens got divorced and Mr. Sveen died in 2011.

Ms. Melin argues that because the law hadn't been passed yet when the policy was purchased the Contracts Clause of the Constitution nullifies the law. All the justices who weren't nominated by our illegitimate president agreed that's not the way it works.

Gorsuch believes the Contracts Clause is absolute - any law that impairs a contract must be considered unconstitutional.

The problem with Gorsuch's stance is it effectively nullifies every law in existence.

Fun and easy - but extreme - example: I am a shopkeeper in Wall, South Dakota. I wish to sell marijuana to the public. I travel to Colorado and execute a contract with a cannabis farmer for ten tons of bulk cannabis flower per month to be delivered by a date certain. There are a vast number of laws I'd have to violate to enter into this business. Under the Gorsuch Doctrine, I could walk into court waving a copy of the contract and claim the drug laws of Wyoming, South Dakota and the federal government impair my contract with the pot farmer, and all those laws would be instantly erased.

Seriously though, any law on the books impairs someone's contract. Fortunately, the other eight justices didn't see things Gorsuch's way.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gorsuch is the most radic...